Template talk:AMD Ryzen Desktop Processor with Radeon Vega Graphics

Computing Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

A column listing the number of PCIe lanes ought to be added as these processors have fewer than the 1000-series Ryzens. Early reviews are saying that they present eight lanes to the primary x16 PCIe slot. If the other four to the Promontory chip and four typically used by an M.2 socket remain unchanged from 1000-series Ryzens, then that makes a total of 16 lanes. This is

I am not so sure this needs its own column on the table. Rather the table should include specs that are different between models (or critical information). A comment on the article pages where this template is used should be sufficient. Otherwise we risk this template becoming ridiculously large with various specs. Dbsseven (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the concern is about the table being too wide I would rather drop the Launch price column in favour of a Number of PCIe lanes column. If you want to move out information that's the same for every device then L2 cache, L3 cache and Memory support could all be replaced with a comment on the article page. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is worth discussing. However, the L2,L3, Memory Support and launch price are standard for most CPU/APU tables. IMO, the reason for having templates is to then use them on other pages in useful ways. In particular, this template is often adjacent and compared to other Ryzen products. If this template has a distinct format, then it becomes less useful/readable/comparable. Perhaps it might be more appropriate to have a general discussion on the Talk:Ryzen page, so the table design can be discussed for all related products there? (I'm not trying to be stubborn, just think consistency aids readability and usefulness.) Dbsseven (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i added the GE models with a reliable source. I realize they are not announced yet, so this is murky with

I'm not entirely convinced that the GE devices are actually distinctly separate items - they just appear to be underclocked G devices. I've seen options in the BIOSes of AM4 motherboards to set the required TDP, with possible values of 35W, 65W and 95W. Incidentally, why does this template have Ryzen 3 at the top, while the others have it at the bottom? 83.104.249.240 (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above, this table needs to be reversed in orientation, ASAP! Whether or not the "GE" variants should be listed separately I don't really know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooe (talk • contribs) 16:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was annoying me so I did it. I'm still unhappy about the speculative inclusion of the GE devices which, a month later, have still not been announced. The cited source is reputable but it admits that the article is pieced together from partial information from motherboard manufacturers' sites. At best it's a leak and that has no place in a Wikipedia article. I vote for removal. Comments? 83.104.249.240 (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The tooltip for the Base CPU Clock (3+ active cores) doesn't make sense in the case of the two-core Athlon 200GE. I'm wondering how best to re-word it. Suggestions? 49.145.129.253 (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would drop the tooltip all together. Because "Base" is simply just the base clock doesn't have to to with # cores (as the boost has). Also we don't have it in the "AMD Ryzen 2000 Series" Template nor other AMD CPU templates. Wikiinger (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, someone created this recently: Template:AMD Zen 2 based Ryzen Desktop Processor with Radeon Vega Graphics. — Pizzahut2 (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AMD released here the consumer and OEM (Pro) variants with the very same specs. However in the table we list them in an extra row, although they are the very same silicon as the non-pro variants. My two problems with this:

• Unnecessary bloat of the table. It looks like there are 12 APU types, but actually there are just 6.
• Confusing to the reader. The reader sees an extra row for the pro variant, so one must think there something different. While there actually is no (hardware) difference (and this is a table about the hardware).

So I was wondering does someone has an idea how to nicely merge those rows? Maybe with a footnote or something? Wikiinger (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Split date column, one date for the standard models, other one for "PRO".

Name	Release date		Price[a]
	Standard	PRO
Athlon 200GE	September 6, 2018		$55
Athlon 220GE	December 21, 2018	N/A	$65
Ryzen 3 2200GE	April 19, 2018	May 10, 2018	Unknown

— Pizzahut2 (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not sure if it's the exact same die with features being enabled or disabled by the firmware depending on whether it's the PRO version or not. From AnandTech: "transparent secure memory encryption (SME), secure boot (hardware-based), application whitelist, fTPM and TPM 2.0 support, and KVM support through DASH." The article's wording is a bit confusing too - do consumer and PRO variant have these features?

In the end I guess it doesn't matter, since such differences aren't listed in the table. — Pizzahut2 (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was more thinking of something like this:

Model[a]	...	Release date	Price
Athlon (Pro) 200GE	...	September 6, 2018	$55
Athlon 220GE	...	December 21, 2018	$65
Ryzen 3 (Pro) 2200GE	...	April 19, 2018 Pro: May 10, 2018	$99

Since I would like to avoid additional columns (which we don't have in the other tables)... Wikiinger (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Often articles are structured by architecture (Zen, Zen+, Zen2).

Also this template has some Athlon APUs, not just Ryzen branded.

So I would suggest renaming this template to something like

Template:AMD Zen based desktop APUs

and have another template for the upcoming Ryzen 3 3200G and Ryzen 5 3400G, which are Zen+, named something like

Template:AMD Zen+ based desktop APUs

Pizzahut2 (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"AMD Ryzen Desktop Processors with Radeon Vega Graphics" is AMD's official naming for this product category. Let's first wait until those new Zen 2-based APUs come out and then decide what names make sense. -- intgr [talk] 10:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the naming of the Ryzen APUs. For Athlon it's "AMD Athlon Processor with Radeon Vega Graphics" according to [1]. I guess in this case, it should be called Template:AMD Athlon and Ryzen Desktop Processors with Radeon Vega Graphics.

The Zen+ APUs are the new ones, apparently APUs lag behind one generation. So Zen 2 CPUs and Zen+ APUs are released, both as part of the 3000 series.

Pizzahut2 (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added Template:AMD Zen+ based desktop APUs. Feel free to rename it. Pizzahut2 (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Athlon 3000G is a Zen+ Picasso CPU.^[1] Moving it to the Zen+ template. SVMLegacy (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a little more digging, and this is a more interesting chip than meets the eye. It uses a different die than Picasso, which is much smaller. Likely to be 14 nm Zen, Banded Kestrel core. --SVMLegacy (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created a new template that includes only the Zen 1 Ryzen 2000 series APUs for